It is difficult, if not impossible, to garner attention from Washington politicians. Most have attitudes like Sen. Charles Schumer: arrogance to a high degree. (Remember the stimulus vote and how we don’t care about a few billion dollars?)

However, since so very much is involved with the health care reform proposals, it would be in the best interest of the nation to know what on Earth is in this legislation.

It begs the question, “What is the rush?” For something that will alter such a large portion of our gross national product and potentially alter our standard of living through taxation, shouldn’t we get it right now?

At present, no average citizen knows what is in the latest version, or for that matter, any version of this landmark legislation. It may very well be that this is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, but with so much being done behind the scenes and with individual lawmakers being placated for their votes, it does appear to be something nefarious, rather than the panacea for all that ails our health care system.

What’s the rush? What is it going to cost in new taxes? What exactly is being added with unknown riders, and by whom? Why can’t this be carefully reviewed and understood before enactment?

Patrick J. Ryan
Jamesville

Health care bill adds to already broken system

To the Editor:

The health care bill coming out of the Senate does have some important improvements for my family. Health insurance companies can no longer exclude people because of pre-existing conditions and cannot stop paying for life-saving medical care because it is costly.

Otherwise, the present health care bill just adds to the present broken, for-profit health care system. I also don’t think that the compromised health care system will contain the ballooning costs. The present compromise does not satisfy anybody. The people who profit from the present system and their Republican followers will keep denouncing the Democrats, and the people who were looking for reform are disappointed.

The present for-profit health care system needs to be replaced by a single-payer system. Doctors, not the insurance companies, would decide on medical procedures.

That how it is done in Israel and Austria, where my friends and relatives live. The states should take this function. It is also my opinion that the states should collect all taxes and pass the funds on to both localities and the federal government. The state, of course, would fund the health care system.

Philipp Kornreich
North Syracuse

Can this nation afford proposed health bill?

To the Editor:

The House and Senate comprehensive health care bills will cause enormous changes to our health care system and lives.

Are the bills constitutional?

For subsidies, supporters invoke the constitutional power “to spend for the general welfare.” Supreme Court precedent recognizes this power. But James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and many others have clearly stated that no such power exists. Furthermore, subsidies do not qualify as “general welfare” when given only to some, in varying amounts.

Will the bills be successful and cost-effective?

Supporters claim the legislation will be successful and cost-effective, maybe even save money. But special interests and political considerations overwhelmingly influence federal legislation and administration, minimizing the chances of both success and cost-effectiveness. Considered from the average citizen’s point of view, prior major federal legislation results have been abysmal.

Can we afford it?

Supporters say “yes.” But with the prospect of trillion-dollar deficits each year for the next 10 years, the federal government can’t even afford many current expenditures.

Now is the time to inform your congressional representatives and senators of your opinion of these bills, especially if you’re opposed.

Dave Wilson
Syracuse

Bill’s process seems cloaked in secrecy

To the Editor:

This is part of a letter I sent to Rep. Bill Owens and Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

I am opposed to the current health care legislation moving through Congress, and I oppose the methods by which you are trying to push this past (and upon) the people.

Why is this being done as fast as possible and cloaked in darkness and secrecy? We were promised that the negotiations would be conducted in the open. We were promised that proposed legislation would be placed on the Internet for 72 hours prior to action. That didn’t happen with the Manager’s Amendment prior to the cloture vote.

I have a full-time job that consumes about 10 hours of each day, therefore I cannot fully study the entire bill as I would like, because another trick you are using is to write them too long and complicated (72 hours is insufficient time). You are making it virtually impossible for citizens to be informed watchdogs of our government by burying language that references other laws and hiding funding in unrelated bills.

Why are some states receiving special deals and subsidies under your proposals?. Please read the Constitution, Article I, Section 9: “No preference shall be given ... of one state over those of another.” Why would a New York senator force the people of this state to pay for the costs of this legislation to other states?

Michael Riggin
Chittenango

Republicans, Indies reject health care bill

To the Editor:

How bad can this proposed ObamaCare bill actually be? All the Republicans reject it, as do most Independents. Many Democrats in both the House and Senate are at odds. Even our extreme liberal Sen. Charles Schumer and our beyond-extreme liberal Gov. David Paterson are at each others’ throats over this 2,000-page monstrosity.

At the heart of the ObamaCare nightmare is the Democratic leadership team, which I call REPO: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They have spent millions of the taxpayer dollars buying the votes of senators who don’t care about you or me, but are only concerned about being re-elected with the help of the REPO team.

The REPO team is all for funding to kill babies in their mother’s womb, destroying the sanctity of marriage and having the federal government administer our health care whether we like it or not.

Whatever happened to “of the people, by the people and for the people”? Oh, I forgot — that notion in not available in a socialist government. Wow! Democracy — what a concept!